How hungry are the evil -- so willing to hitch their wagons to the Islamic koranic texts that codify anti-antisemitism and demand the annihilation of the Jewish people.

The evil that drove Europe to rid the continent of its Jews is alive and well. None of the lessons that Europe should have learned from World War II were lost. The thing that was bad was that Europe decided to embrace madness and evil, the central
unifying characteristic under the Nazis, just as it is the under Islamic anti-semitism.

They took all the wrong lessons from WW2 and are applying them, while
ignoring the only lesson that's really relevant from WW2, which is that
you have to choose good and defend good and fight with the intention of
defeating evil.

The decision
last week by the Methodist Church of Britain to launch a boycott against goods
emanating from settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem will send a
shiver down the spine of anyone with a feel for where the rancid, global
campaign against the Jewish state is currently heading.

The fact that an institution professing allegiance
to values of love, truth and justice should have succumbed to an agenda of
hatred, hypocrisy and barbarism is sadly emblematic of the degraded spirit of
our times, and of the moral inversions which blow through them.

But who,
these days, can really be surprised about such happenings in modern Europe? It
is only the banality, to appropriate Hannah Arendt, of this particular evil that
still has the power to shock us. For, in watching the discussions at the
Methodist Conference which approved the boycott, there was little in the way of
the visceral hatred of Israel which we have become so accustomed to seeing in
academic settings or in the trade unions. Here was a group of almost
stereotypically ordinary, middle-class, English Christians calmly reciting every
hackneyed anti-Israeli calumny in the book.“What is happening in
Palestine today is what was happening in South Africa in the recent past,” one
delegate said. Another spoke of the “66 percent of 9- to 12-month-old babies
[that] are anemic in Gaza.”Yet another described a picture, which she
held up in front of her, of a small boy “with large eyes” and “deep pain” in
those eyes. “This little boy lives in Gaza,” she said ominously, adding (without
irony) that the conference should “speak and act for those whose voices are not
heard.”Later, the point was repeated with one speaker lamenting the
position of the Palestinians who have “no one to tell of what they’re going
through.”There was a lecture on the Old Testament, the Jews as “the
chosen people,” the children of Abraham, and the revelations of Jesus: “Jesus...
never speaks of the land or owning it; he speaks of the kingdom and joining it,”
said the delegate joyfully. “...He teaches us God is not a racist God [her emphasis] who has favorites.
God loves all his children [her
emphasis] and blesses them.”A student of archeology from the University
of Manchester protested against accusations of one-sidedness in a report on the
conflict which underpinned the boycott resolution: “No conflict is ever
one-sided, “ he said before concluding, literally seconds later, that “perhaps
it is not the report that is one-sided, but simply the conflict.”IF
TOTAL illogicality, intimations about the dangers of Jews worshiping a racist
God, preposterous assertions about the Palestinian cause not getting an airing
in the outside world and depraved and asinine comparisons with apartheid South
Africa were the stock in trade of the ordinary delegates, the church’s
sophisticates were not to be outdone.Here is the Rev. Graham Carter, the
chairman of the working group that produced the initial report. He is speaking
at the end of the first debate, just after having made his (pro forma?)
reference to upholding the right of Israel to exist: “We didn’t go through the
list of criticizing other governments, because there was no place to stop,” he
said. “We could have criticized the United States for its past unquestioning
support of the government of Israel. We could have questioned our own government
for the equivocality of its approach. Where would we stop? So we concentrated
simply on the situation in Palestine itself.”

In referring to criticism
of governments around the world other than Israel, one might have expected that
this was his cue to explain why Israel had been singled out. Not a bit of it. It
never appeared to occur to him that the question of gross hypocrisy might be an
issue. His only thoughts about other governments concerned the sense in which
they might have been criticized for complicity in Israeli behavior! But it is
when he comes to the question of anti- Semitism that he meets his undoing. “I
want to state quite clearly and categorically that there is no hint of
anti-Semitism in what we have said or in what we intend,” he stated boldly. “If
other people want to do things like that, that is their problem. It is not our
problem as a Methodist church. We need to be honest about where stand and what
we feel. And if we are concerned about anti-Semitism, why don’t we talk about
the anti-Islam approach?” I leave it to others to judge whether there is a “hint
of anti-Semitism” in what they have said or intended.

Read the rest of this from these sick souls.

Comments

For the Love of Evil

How hungry are the evil -- so willing to hitch their wagons to the Islamic koranic texts that codify anti-antisemitism and demand the annihilation of the Jewish people.

The evil that drove Europe to rid the continent of its Jews is alive and well. None of the lessons that Europe should have learned from World War II were lost. The thing that was bad was that Europe decided to embrace madness and evil, the central
unifying characteristic under the Nazis, just as it is the under Islamic anti-semitism.

They took all the wrong lessons from WW2 and are applying them, while
ignoring the only lesson that's really relevant from WW2, which is that
you have to choose good and defend good and fight with the intention of
defeating evil.

The decision
last week by the Methodist Church of Britain to launch a boycott against goods
emanating from settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem will send a
shiver down the spine of anyone with a feel for where the rancid, global
campaign against the Jewish state is currently heading.

The fact that an institution professing allegiance
to values of love, truth and justice should have succumbed to an agenda of
hatred, hypocrisy and barbarism is sadly emblematic of the degraded spirit of
our times, and of the moral inversions which blow through them.

But who,
these days, can really be surprised about such happenings in modern Europe? It
is only the banality, to appropriate Hannah Arendt, of this particular evil that
still has the power to shock us. For, in watching the discussions at the
Methodist Conference which approved the boycott, there was little in the way of
the visceral hatred of Israel which we have become so accustomed to seeing in
academic settings or in the trade unions. Here was a group of almost
stereotypically ordinary, middle-class, English Christians calmly reciting every
hackneyed anti-Israeli calumny in the book.“What is happening in
Palestine today is what was happening in South Africa in the recent past,” one
delegate said. Another spoke of the “66 percent of 9- to 12-month-old babies
[that] are anemic in Gaza.”Yet another described a picture, which she
held up in front of her, of a small boy “with large eyes” and “deep pain” in
those eyes. “This little boy lives in Gaza,” she said ominously, adding (without
irony) that the conference should “speak and act for those whose voices are not
heard.”Later, the point was repeated with one speaker lamenting the
position of the Palestinians who have “no one to tell of what they’re going
through.”There was a lecture on the Old Testament, the Jews as “the
chosen people,” the children of Abraham, and the revelations of Jesus: “Jesus...
never speaks of the land or owning it; he speaks of the kingdom and joining it,”
said the delegate joyfully. “...He teaches us God is not a racist God [her emphasis] who has favorites.
God loves all his children [her
emphasis] and blesses them.”A student of archeology from the University
of Manchester protested against accusations of one-sidedness in a report on the
conflict which underpinned the boycott resolution: “No conflict is ever
one-sided, “ he said before concluding, literally seconds later, that “perhaps
it is not the report that is one-sided, but simply the conflict.”IF
TOTAL illogicality, intimations about the dangers of Jews worshiping a racist
God, preposterous assertions about the Palestinian cause not getting an airing
in the outside world and depraved and asinine comparisons with apartheid South
Africa were the stock in trade of the ordinary delegates, the church’s
sophisticates were not to be outdone.Here is the Rev. Graham Carter, the
chairman of the working group that produced the initial report. He is speaking
at the end of the first debate, just after having made his (pro forma?)
reference to upholding the right of Israel to exist: “We didn’t go through the
list of criticizing other governments, because there was no place to stop,” he
said. “We could have criticized the United States for its past unquestioning
support of the government of Israel. We could have questioned our own government
for the equivocality of its approach. Where would we stop? So we concentrated
simply on the situation in Palestine itself.”

In referring to criticism
of governments around the world other than Israel, one might have expected that
this was his cue to explain why Israel had been singled out. Not a bit of it. It
never appeared to occur to him that the question of gross hypocrisy might be an
issue. His only thoughts about other governments concerned the sense in which
they might have been criticized for complicity in Israeli behavior! But it is
when he comes to the question of anti- Semitism that he meets his undoing. “I
want to state quite clearly and categorically that there is no hint of
anti-Semitism in what we have said or in what we intend,” he stated boldly. “If
other people want to do things like that, that is their problem. It is not our
problem as a Methodist church. We need to be honest about where stand and what
we feel. And if we are concerned about anti-Semitism, why don’t we talk about
the anti-Islam approach?” I leave it to others to judge whether there is a “hint
of anti-Semitism” in what they have said or intended.